10. Keeping a private email server looks suspicious, and even more so since it might be the only thing in Washington that was apparently never successfully hacked.11. Taking $240,000 checks from Wall Street to give speeches no one remembers.12. People are tired of inaction of a divided government, and want to see what a single-party government can get done.13. Running for president after a black, Kenyan-born, Muslim-faith President tried to destroy America with Wall Street bailouts and unaffordable healthcare.14. Running against the weakest and most preposterous Celebrity candidate in the history of America.

Oops, the last one was an anti-excuse, an insult only made worse by winning the popular vote.

So that looks like good evidence that if California seceded from the union that instantly Republicans would be for ending the electoral college as undemocratic, while Democrats would instantly defend it as a sacred protection of smaller population states to influence the winner.

Myself, I'm open to the idea of weighed elector votes, so if Trump gets 31.62% of the California vote, he can get that fraction of the 55 electors, or 17.39 electors. Or you could allocate 53 electors by proportion of the state vote, and 2 electors for the state winner, so then Trump would only get 16.76 electors from California. You could round to integers if we keep actual electors.

But the real reason we can't do that is because third parties would suddenly get electors allocated to them, and we've have a lot more elections where no one gets the magic 270. (In which case I'd advocate the electors themselves become sovereign citizens who can vote in multiple ballots until a 270 winner is reached.)